The new issue of WorldNetDaily's Whistleblower magazine has the theme, "The Day the Media Died." It's ostensibly about how "America's 'mainstream media' have finally, during 2008, dropped the façade of fairness and impartiality" -- a rather hilarious argument from a "news" outlet that never bothered with the pretense and tells outright fabrications to its readers.

Indeed, the entire issue appears to be an in-kind contribution to the McCain campaign (like much of WND's news coverage). Among the featured claims:

The pregnancy of Sarah Palin's teen daughter is national news, as is the presence in the Alaska governor's mansion of a tanning bed (which Palin paid for herself). But Obama being mentored and nurtured for years by terrorists (William Ayers), communists (Frank Marshall Davis) and America-hating racists (Rev. Jeremiah Wright), which helped shape him into the most left-wing, America-blaming, radically pro-abortion and tyrant-appeasing presidential candidate in U.S. history, is not news.

[...]

"It doesn't matter how dangerous the reality of Obama is – a hardcore leftist whose intended tax-and-spend policies would, experts say, plunge American into a full-bore depression," said WND Managing Editor and best-selling author David Kupelian. "It doesn't matter how surreal and creepy his campaign gets – enlisting sheriffs and prosecutors to intimidate voters, exploiting children into singing 'Obama's gonna lead us' songs stunningly reminiscent of Chinese Maoist indoctrination. The mainstream press ignores it all, because, very simply, they just really want Obama to be president."

Of course, at WND, it's a steady diet of Obama sleaze, hate, lies, and fake documents while refusing to report anything negative about McCain. And Kupelian curiously fails to mention his own partisan affiliation -- he has endorsed McCain, and WND's news coverage is a direct reflection of that endorsement.

In other (italicized) words, WND ignores all negative news about McCain because, very simply, Kupelian just really wants McCain to be president -- making a mockery of boss Joseph Farah's claim to support "none of the above."

Kupelian is also quoted as saying, "By pushing so unashamedly and openly for Obama, the Old Media are throwing away what little is left of their credibility." Given that Kupelian's own website is outright lying about Obama, how much credibility could he and WND possibly have?

Which makes Kupelian and WND setting themselves up as moral arbiters of media behavior so roll-on-the-floor hilarious -- that is, if it wasn't so utterly dishonest and pathetic.

If a "mainstream media" outlet lied as much as WND, it would have died a painful death a long time ago. Yet WND remains in business. Where's the justice?

New Article: Jerome Corsi's Bogus JourneyTopic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily writer's trip to Kenya on a quest to smear Barack Obama resulted in a run-in with authorities -- and a fistful of documents are clearly fake. Read more >>

An Oct. 19 WorldNetDaily article by Jay Baggett features a case involving anti-abortion extremist Neal Horsley, a fringe candidte for governor in Georgia, being charged with obscenity for carrying around a campaign sign displaying the head of an aborted fetus. But Baggett whitewashes Horsley's background, though not as much as a 2003 WND article that, as we detailed, airbrushed all controversy out of Horsley's behavior.

Baggett wrote:

Horsley is perhaps better known for operating the "Nuremberg Files" website in the late 1990s that featured names of abortion practitioners. He was accused by abortion advocates of inciting violence for crossing out names of doctors who had died or who had been killed.

His website featured prominently in Planned Parenthood vs. American Coalition of Life Activists, despite the fact the defendents did not own or operate the Nuremberg website and its actual owner, Horsley, was not a named party in the case. Nonetheless, the Portland, Ore., pro-life activists were hit with a judgment of $109 million for creating "Deadly Dozen" posters on which the names of 12 abortion doctors were listed.

But Horsley didn't just "cross out names of doctors who had died or who had been killed"; as Salon wrote, those "Deadly Dozen" posters -- which also included the doctors' home addresses, their social security numbers, and the names of their children and where they went to school -- appeared on Horsley's website.HOrsley also posted thousands of photographs and videos of patients, clinic workers and clinic defenders as an apparent attempt at intimidation.

Further, contrary to Baggett's assertion that Horsley's website was not linked at all to the group at the center of the lawsuit, Salon stated: "The now defunct American Coalition of Life Activists morphed into the aboveground political apparatus of the violent Army of God -- with Horsley as its most prominent front man. Indeed, the Army of God Web site celebrates Horsley as 'A Hero of the Faith.'"

None of this information appears in Baggett's article.

Baggett also fails to mention that Horsley's actions were condemned by none other than anti-abortion activist and WND favorite Alan Keyes. From Salon:

Horsley clearly expected a sympathetic reception from the uncompromisingly pro-life Allen Keyes. But he was in for a painful surprise. After reminding viewers, "I don't think that there's a stronger advocate of the pro-life position in America today than I try to be in everything that I do and say," Keyes went on: "But I want to tell you quite bluntly that I think that what you are doing is wrong, that it's harmful to the pro-life movement, that it represents the kind of tactic that will disgrace and discredit what we are trying to do, and that it involves a tactic that, because it disregards what ought to be our own principle of care and concern for life, is actually contrary to the truths we're supposed to stand for. And I want to say quite bluntly on behalf of the pro-life movement itself, I wish you'd stop it."

Stunned, Horsley began by praising his host's godliness, saying, "You represent to me a man who's blessed my soul." But then he fired back, saying, "I think you're ignoring the fact that these people are going to kill God's children ... a woman who goes and kills her baby is involved in some degree of homicide and she's going to be punished. And we can pretend she's a victim, but the reality is she knows what she's doing. And God knows she knows what she's doing. And we've got to start acting like that's the truth or else we confuse people."

Keyes countered: "I believe deeply in the injunction 'Speak the truth with love.' And love means that you don't endanger somebody, that you don't approach them in a way that will actually possibly bring harm and grief upon them because, in your self-righteousness, you think you're the instrument of God's punishment ... I think the question of conscience and punishment ought to be left in his hands."

Horsley started to reply but Keyes cut him off. "[W]e must not unleash greater evils in what we do to stop the evil we're looking at," Keyes said. "And if we go forward in a way that suggests we're declaring some kind of physical war on people, then the end result will be a worse situation, and we'll be to blame for it."

Horsley denied he was doing what Keyes accused him of, but Keyes insisted Horsley's actions were "going to hurt" the pro-life movement.

One would think that such information would be relevant to WND readers. But then, WND has some peculiar ideas about journalism.

Following David Letterman's mention of John McCain's links to domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy during McCain's appearance on Letterman's "Late Show" Oct. 16, one would think it would have gained mention somewhere on the ConWeb.

NewsBusters keeps up its Heathercampaign against David Brooks with an Oct. 18 post by P.J. Gladnick:

The New York Times "House Conservative" seems to know his place. Pretend to be a "conservative" while advancing the liberal agenda of getting Obama elected (along with slamming Rush Limbaugh). Should the "House Conservative" veer from that path, he will find his invites to exclusive Manhattan parties, where they probably now express "strange new respect" for Brooks, dry up along, perhaps, with his job.

Would Gladnick continue to be allowed to write at NewsBusters if he didn't write stuff like this, attacking fellow conservatives who deviated even slightly from right-wing dogma? We wonder...

Would all schools in the U.S., under the muscle of an Obama administration, be forced to drill youth in the talking points of "gay" sex and gender–switching, calling it "justice"? Would Ayers' idea that America is an oppressive regime with way too much heterosexuality become a core tenet of your child's value system?

Use Obama-Glo and you'll get a high paying job that demands virtually no hours per week, free health care, free abortions, free hurricane protection, free higher education, a cameo in a Tom Hanks movie, free tire inflation service so we can stop drilling for oil and free delicious and nutritious meals with zero trans fats delivered by an ex Fannie Mae executive in a hybrid car to your mortgage-free home three times per day!

[...]

And don't forget, if you order now, your name will be placed in the Obama-Glo sweepstakes. That's right, your kids and/or grandkids could win a chance to sing alongside the world famous Obama Youth in an upcoming production of "If They Could See Me Mao: The Musical" – coming soon to a public school classroom near you. (on-screen graphic: odds of winning = 99.9 out of 100)

What are you waiting for? Quantities aren't limited, so you should order like you should vote: early and often!

There's bamboozle and there's bamboozled – and then there is Barry Sotero, aka Barack Hussein Obama, the quintessential bam-boo-zuh-ler. But that notwithstanding, all indications are that on Jan. 20 of 2009, America's first Kenyan-American will be sworn in as president. To which I say, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," i.e., "let them eat cake" – because there sure won't be anything else of substantive fulfillment for Americans to enjoy. Voters are buying into his repeatedly vacuous mantra of "change" – and change they are going to get – but, excluding socialists, communists and Marxists, not a change they are going to be happy with.

Beyond appointing a junior leftist like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or a younger version of abortion zealot Stephen Breyer to the bench, Obama promised to sign the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" as the first thing he will do if elected. With one stroke of the pen, Obama's first act would strike down every state and federal law restricting abortion in all 50 states. That means no more parental notice, no more ban on partial-birth abortions, no more protection for any child – anywhere. Even infants who are born alive won't get protection from an Obama administration, as he led the charge in the Illinois Senate and voted four times against protecting infants who escape an abortion alive!

Obama was unquestioningly accepted as packaged – someone who was sincere, forthright and amiable in every way. The fact that he doesn't have the ghetto-jabbering syntax of a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton most assuredly did not hurt him. It simply hasn't occurred to whites (or blacks for that matter) that Obama could even approach being the monster a white man has the potential of being.

MRC Bashes Stephanopoulos for Agreeing With AmericansTopic: Media Research Center

An Oct. 16 Media Research Center CyberAlert item (and NewsBusters post) by Brent Baker complained that "Democratic operative-turned ABC News journalist George Stephanopoulos made it a 'clean sweep for Barack Obama' as he declared on Nightline after Wednesday's third and final presidential debate: 'He has won every debate,'" adding that "Stephanopoulos has awarded all four debates this year to the more liberal candidate."

Baker fails to note that Stephanopoulos' opinion reflected that of the American public as indicated by post-debate polling, in which a plurality or majority also declared Obama the winner:

How utterly craven and desperate is WorldNetDaily to smear Barack Obama? It's lending what little credibility it has to promoting an almost assuredly nonexistent tape of Michelle Obama purportedly haranguing an almost assuredly nonexistent "news agency."

An Oct. 16 article (unbylined -- it seems that WND's own writers lack enough faith in API to actually put a name to this) parrots African Press International's claim that "the contents of the tapes if made public may change the political atmosphere in America for ever." Indeed, WND uncritically parrots everything API has to say, including its claim that Michelle Obama called API "because of a Nairobi contact that did not like the way API was covering Barack Obama using information collected from American media outlets. The Nairobi contact prevailed upon Mrs. Obama to talk to API."

While WND buries denials by the Obama campaign, as well as by National Review's Byron York, in the article, it ignores other views on the subject by its fellow right-wingers:

"Not sure how she would have found a number to call them with since they don't provide a contact number anywhere," said JammieWearingFool.

"A simple search on a AllAfrica.com, an African news agency that aggregates hundreds of African newspapers that is based in Washington D.C shows that [API] were not mentioned anywhere," said the pro-Palin Change & Experience blog.

Further, an Oct. 15 ABC News post by Jake Tapper -- currently linked to from WND's front page but not strangely referenced anywhere in the WND article -- makes an important point: "The Obama campaign does not tend to directly engage fringe Web sitesmaking wild charges, and if they were to do so, they certainly wouldn't have Michelle Obama make the call."

[T]here is no such thing as the news agency, African Press International. It is in fact an unbelievably cheap-looking Wordpress blog, operated by a pseudonymous person from God-knows-where, that steals daily news stories from the African Press Agency, strips the attributions from them, and substitutes its own name. This enterprise also features a phony charity impersonating an actual charity.

WND has displayed no evidence that it has ever made an attempt to investigate the background of API or "Chief Editor Korir."

Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi and Co., we can easily assume, are most desperately praying to their God, hoping against hope that -- in the face of all signs they have most assuredly seen -- this story is even slightly true. Then again, it promoted the false "whitey" story too.

If, as it appears, it is a fake (not unlike Corsi's Kenya documents), WND deserves to be shamed out of the journalism business. Unless it thinks it can convince people that lies are the new "journalism."

An Oct. 17 Newsmax article by David Patten promoted an ad campaign by the anti-Obama National Republican Trust PAC that will highlight Barack Obama allegedly "embrac[ing] the idea of giving driver’s licenses to any illegal immigrant who wanted one." The article is illustrated by a shot of 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta's Florida driver's license and notes, "In the aftermath of 9/11, authorities reported that the 19 terrorists involved in the attacks had obtained 13 driver’s licenses, plus 21 federal or state-issued ID cards."

But Atta didn't enter the United States illegally; he arrived on a tourist visa, which he later applied to have changed to a student visa (during which time his tourist visa expired, meaning that he was technically in the U.S. illegally at the time of the attacks). That student visa application was approved in 2002.

Indeed, all of the 9/11 hijackers entered the U.S. legally on visas, though several had overstayed time limits, making them technically illegal at the time of the attacks.

Tim Graham takes time out from HeatheringDavid Brooks to draw a false equivalence between sex scandals in an Oct. 17 NewsBusters post. In it, he complains that the sex scandal involving Democratic Florida Rep. Tim Mahoney has received only a fraction of the media coverage of the sex scandal of the man he replaced, Republican Mark Foley. But Graham downplays Foley's offenses and pretends both scandals are the same.

Graham states Foley's offense only as "sending sexual Internet messages to Congressional pages." He fails to acknowledge -- even though he reprints a 2006 transcript pointing it out -- that there was a larger issue of Foley's history of behavior toward the (teenage male) pages and whether House Republican leadership knew about it and did anything to stop it, which ratchets up the scandal quotient.

Mahoney, meanwhile, is caught in the arguably dime-a-dozen scandal of paying off a (female adult) mistress who threatened to go public about the affair and of apparent involvement involvement in multiple other affairs. Sleazy? Sure. But not as sleazy as cruising for teenage boys and the Repubican leadership trying to cover it up.

If you'll recall, Graham's fellow MRC employees at NewsBusters and CNSNews.com endeavored to distract their readers from the Foley scandal in 2006.

Schilling apparently doesn't read her own website (much like fellow WND employee Drew Zahn), because WND debunked the claim that Obama's birth certificate is fraudulent back in August. For Schilling's benefit, here's the relevant section:

A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.

As we asked about Zahn: Is Schilling really that stupid, or is she so dishonest that she will lie to her readers in order to smear Obama?

The amnesia (and stupidity) spreads to Hal Lindsey, who makes the mistake of reading the website that publishes him -- except for the part that answers the question he raises. Lindsey makes this convoluted logical trainwreck:

Besides, FactCheck.org says it examined the Obama birth certificate and claims it is genuine.

But FactCheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Foundation, which links to Bill Ayers, which links to Barack Obama, both of whom held seats on that board – which then calls FactCheck.org's objectivity into question.

Needless to say, Lindsey fails to mention that Walter Annenberg, the source of the funding behind FactCheck.org and the Annenberg Challenge, was a prominent Republican.

NewsBusters' lead Heather, Tim Graham, has let loose the Swatch dogs of war again upon conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks.

In an Oct. 15 post, Graham bashed Brooks as an "increasingly fraudulent 'conservative'" (translation: he won't robotically regurgitiate McCain talking points), though he did relent a bit and concede that Brooks "tried to be generous at the end and say the 'landscape has been so biased against McCain.'"

Graham bashes away further on Brooks in an Oct. 16 post for committing the offense of speaking the truth that Barack Obama handled the debate attacks from John McCain well and that McCain didn't cause enough damage to significantly alter the campaign. That's not how Graham saw it, of course; he sneered that "Brooks was digging McCain’s campaign a grave" and did a "gush for Obama."

An Oct. 15 CNSNews.com article by Matt Cover claiming that "Barack Obama’s plan to cut taxes on 95 percent of taxpayers would effectively increase government spending" is missing a few things.

Cover credits the claim to "the non-partisan Tax Policy Center," but the only direct quotes the article attributes to anyone at the center are definitions of two Obama tax-related proposals. All conclusions Cover reports are paraphrased, which makes it difficult to go back to the source and figure out from exactly which TPC report Cover is getting his information. (the most recent came out Sept. 30.)

Note that Cover calls the Tax Policy Center "non-partisan." He might want to check with upper management for guidance on that, since his ultimate boss, Brent Bozell, criticizes the media whenever they do that. In a Sept. 30 column, Bozell complained that "reporters and columnists touting Obama are repeatedly citing numbers by something called the Tax Policy Center – and you’ll never hear that this is a project operated by two liberal-Democrat think tanks."

Also missing is any mention of the TPC's analysis of John McCain's tax plans -- for example, it has noted that McCain's plan to lower capital gains taxes would mostly benefit those with income of $600,000 a year or more. Or would CNS have to state that TPC is "liberal-Democrat" if it did?

The Capital Research Center's Matthew Vadum has attacked us in an Oct. 15 post, calling us "mendacious masochists" and a smear site" for pointing out a false claim he made regarding Barack Obama's relationship with ACORN and goes on to say we "should do some research for a change."

Actually, we did do our research. But Vadum didn't address what we actually said.

If you'll recall, we were pointing out that Newsmax's Lowell Ponte cited Vadum as his source for claiming that Project Vote was "ACORN’s voter mobilization entity" at the time Obama worked for the group in 1992 -- language lifted almost verbatim from Vadum's CRC report on the subject -- when in fact Project Vote was not a part of ACORN in 1992.

In his blog post, Vadum cites another report that he says "makes it abundantly clear that ACORN and Project Vote were partners in the voter registration drive led by Obama." But that's a different claim than the one we were addressing.

We never claimed that ACORN didn't play a role in the Project Vote operation Obama was a part of in 1992. We are taking issue with Vadum's claim that Project Vote was "ACORN's voter mobilization arm" in 1992. As ACORN itself stated, "At that time, Project Vote had no more connection to ACORN than it did with dozens of other national and local organizations with which it partnered on local registration drives."

Where's Vadum's evidence contradicting that? We see none. And his insistence that it's an "invented claim" doesn't count because he doesn't back that up either.

Vadum thinks he issued "another good beating" upon us. That presumes he did so the first time (which he didn't).

If this is Vadum's idea of a beatdown, about all we can say in response is: Thank you, sir, may we have another?